On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Brent Fulgham wrote: > I guess the unspoken issue that's caused confusion for me in this > thread is that Debian is as much about philosophy as it is about > software, or operating systems. One sticking point is likely to > be licensing issues. The GNU/Hurd and GNU/Linux are based (obviously) > on a Stallmanesque GPL-centric ideal, where we know what we produce > cannot be extended and resold under a restrictive license. This > is one area that we differ from BSD, in that BSD allows the licensing > of the software to be changed. I worry that a Debian/BSD might > not meet with much enthusiasm as a Debian Project.
How does a BSD-type license allow licensing of the software to be changed? Yes, someone can take a BSD-licensed code and change it and sell the binaries without supplying the source and changes. But binary or source distributions must include the BSD license. http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license Why does it matter? If someone takes the new BSD-licensed code used in a DebianBSD and extends it and sells it, who cares? Anyways, Debian and FreeBSD are already made up of a bunch of tools that have a variety of licenses. Jeremy C. Reed http://www.reedmedia.net/ http://bsd.reedmedia.net/
